Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

I heard this on NPR and they did a better job of putting this new classification into context (and probably detoothing the newsworthiness). It's classified by the IARC as Group 2B, not even Group 2A. The serious list is Group 1 [wikipedia.org] which indicates they are carcinogenic to humans. Group 2B [wikipedia.org] simply means "possibly carcinogenic to humans."

I would like to point out that also in Group 2B are Magnetic fields (extremely low frequency), pickled vegetables, coffee, nickel and the occupation of carpentry and joinery. And you know what else? Citrus Red No. 2 which is used to color the oranges you buy in supermarkets.

So they've put it next to coffee, coinage and food coloring. Why doesn't everyone flip out when things like those are added to Group 2B?

That does not make it medicine at all. It is still just a pesticide. Otherwise it could be the safest car too.

DDT is not banned where it is needed for Malaria control. The very treaty that made it illegal in most nations has a health exemption.

The fact that you call people nutcases based on your lack of understanding of the actual situation is why it is most reasonable to call you an asshole. It's a perfectly accurate description of the situation.

A lot of things cause cancer that we don't give up. Like flying or living at high elevations. Or breathing. It's just a matter of how big the risk is versus how important the benefit is. If you smoke, you know you're taking a big risk but if it's really important to you, you do it any way. If you breathe, you know you're taking a minor risk, but because it's really ingrained into most of our life-styles, we keep it up.

Most of the rat studies have, um, phenomenally low samples. You'd think that with today's technology they could run thousands of experiments for each group (cage, control, exposed). The results are really touch-and-go in all the papers you mentioned. Of course they have statistical validity, but the degree to which they are valid (likelihood of same outcome happening by random) leaves something to be desired IMHO.

Alas, that's not where the main issue is. The main issues I have is with blaming GSM specifically, and are as follows, and if you have any citations that address those I'd love to hear:

1. Did anyone test with continuous, wideband noise with same overall absorption?2. Did anyone test with wideband noise pulse-modulated to typical GSM envelope?3. Did anyone test with penetrating longwave infrared radiation (from a laser), at same absorption, running with same GSM envelope?4. Did anyone consider that the effects may be of thermo-mechanical origin, where the envelope causes repetitive thermal shock?

At this point it's very unclear what is to blame, and at best the results indicate that a whole lot of other research needs to be done.

Well, they would be if they were locally produced and harvested at just the right time. But when you factor in harvesting just a little too early, packaging in an inert atmosphere, shipping around the world and then taking another few days to get distributed to the store...

If the oranges are shipped out of Florida, they are most likely dyed. It has nothing to do with where the oranges come from, and everything to do with where they are destined for, and how long it will take them to get there. It was already stated that locally grown and consumed oranges are probably not dyed because they can be harvested when ripe and naturally orange.

Citrus Red No. 2 which is used to color the oranges you buy in supermarkets.

Why the fuck do oranges have to be coloured? Are oranges not sufficiently orange?

Because oranges aren't always orange and they have imperfections. Shipping and storing only exacerbates this. But suppliers noticed that people bought more oranges when they looked "pure" orange. And the FDA allowed it [fda.gov] (for whatever reason). Go to an organic food store sometime and look at the produce. You'll think it looks like shit. But it's really just not coated in dye.

Oh, but if the big bad evil government stopped oranges getting coated with food dye then everyone would complain that the nanny state is killing capitalism. So vote with your dollar and be lost in the sea of people who put perception above knowledge.

What 'knowledge' do you use to tell if an orange is a good one to buy or not? How it feels (perception)? How it smells (perception)? How it looks - bruises, etc (perception)? Or do you just buy any old orange, secure in your knowledge that they are all exactly the same, and there is no such thing as under-ripe, over-ripe, damaged, rotten, etc?

Personally, if given the choice between oranges that are dyed and oranges that cost twice as much because half of them won't be sold, I'll stick with the dye.

It's not because half won't be sold, but because less (none?) pesticides are used more of the crop is lost. Also, non GMO crops yield less than regular crops. They are more likely to spoil in transit or on shelves. If all farms switched to "organic" (God I hate that term) foods millions more people would starve.

Incorrect. You can not tell ripeness of an orange by it's color. Color is affected mostly by climate. You can tell the ripeness of a picked orange by weight and firmness. Oranges are dyed precisely because people like you think that color actually means something.

Why is it that slashdot is all about crowd sourcing things and peer-to-peer distributing the load until it comes to government? Then, suddenly, there's all kind of trust and faith in consolidation of power, authority, (re)distribution of resources, etc..

Why are you trying to pigeonhole a complex and (in most respects diverse) group of people that often exhibits conflicting but strong opinions? I think crowd sourcing is stupid or nothing more than marketing except for very special cases and I strive for a balance of government regulation so that we get the best we can from capitalism while avoiding some of its horrors that used to happen in our country and still happen worldwide.

The fact that there are stores that openly and proudly sells uncolored produce tells me that many consumers know the difference and make a strong choice based upon those differences.

Tell me, right now, how close you live to an organic produce store or farmer's market that sells oranges without dye? And how far do you live from (many) regular orange dying super markets? The "choice" has many dimensions and factors and the way you simplify it down is laughable. Do you step outside and see two identical orange stands in front of your house, one dyed and one uncolored? The fact of the matter is that you are subject to the options of the population around you.

As a person who believes that going against capitalism often has unintended negative consequences

Well, I'm glad that you cling to a generic belief when it comes to policy. For me, it's not so simple and I have to make an effort to become informed and make a rational and logical decision that I hope strikes the right balance between capitalism and government regulation so that the people benefit the most. What "unintended negative consequence" did stopping child labor have? What "unintended negative consequence" did banning CFCs have? Oh, of course, the profit margin of some companies.

, all I really ask to be mandated by government in this kind of case is truth in labeling.

And where does it stop? Hmmmm? Should they have to label how these oranges were delivered so I can calculate my carbon offset? Should they be required to list which country and company provided the harvest of the oranges and what kind of labor was employed? Labels can be just as extreme as regulation, you know. And labeling food can be just as detrimental to the population as a whole. You can effectively inundate a consumer with information on a product to the point that they just don't care anymore. That's just as big a danger as absolutely no label. Do you think the average high school graduate can look at two dietary labels on two competing products and tell you the precise differences those labels mean for their particular diet?

Why should I care about the average high school graduate? I can look at the dietary labels and tell you the important differences that pertain to my diet. As far as I'm concerned that's justification enough

But you would complain if the dietary labels would be instead written in some obscure domain-specific language (for example, off the top of my head, actual chemical composition of the incredients, or chemical reactions the ingredients may get involved in). The information would still be true, and complete (and maybe even more accurate than the current dietary labels), but in order to understand the actual effect on you you'd need specialized training or extended study time. Would you accept it's your fault

Just to nitpick a little, there's nothing saying that producers aren't allowed to label GMOs. Most just choose not to. And we ignorant masses typically don't buy organic because we don't think it's worth the added price or environmental impact.

And we ignorant masses typically don't buy organic because we don't think it's worth the added price or environmental impact.

There's also the unsupportability of it. If we all switched to organic, most of us would die of starvation. It's a less effective agricultural technique. Organic food is a luxury item for rich westerners.

There's also the unsupportability of it. If we all switched to organic, most of us would die of starvation. It's a less effective agricultural technique. Organic food is a luxury item for rich westerners.

The whole concept of "organic" exists only because rich westerners decided to sell the future for cheaper food now. By destroying our topsoil and relying on petroleum-based fertilizers, we've created an unsustainable system. You're simply affirming what the GP said - saving an extra five or ten percent for food is more important than the poisons in the food you feed your family. Further, integrated "organic" systems are much more effective on normal farms.

And before you worry about starvation, the US was [foodproductiondaily.com]

People only freak out when they find out what 'food additives' are because they are informed about them in a way designed to make them freak out. It's scare tactics - exactly what has been used to control uninformed populations for centuries. It doesn't matter if it's true or false. Once the scare enters the public consciousness, it's impossible to dislodge.

"Do YOU know what THEY put in YOUR food?""Do YOU know how ANIMALS are SLAUGHTERED?""Do YOU know that CELL PHONES cause CANCER?"

That's not an invitation to learn more, that's an invitation to your amygdala to go batshit insane.

paying higher prices for no measurable gain in nutrition or the number of your days left on the planet

Organic Eggs have twice the Omega-3 fatty acid content, three times the Vitamin E and seven times as much beta-carotene. Eggs are food, and the gain in nutrition is measurable. This is based on science, as the diet of the chicken significantly affects the nutrient content in the eggs. Caged chickens are five times more likely to have salmonella infections than organic raised chickens. While it's not a gain in nutrition, per se, it's most definitely going to statistically affect the number of days you have left on the planet.

Regular milk is flash-pasteurized at between 140F - 160F for a short time. Organic milk is pasteurized using UHT (Ultra High Temperature) at 275F. Because of this, organic milk has measurably less bacteria content, and it takes longer to spoil. If you don't believe me, next time you're at the grocery store, compare the expiration dates of the organic milk vs. non-organic. This is not a nutritional consideration, but for me, less trips to the store is a measurable gain.

Because organic raised cattle graze on grass versus grain, the omega-3 fatty acid content of organic beef is significantly higher than beef raised in a CAFO. Grass-fed beef also tastes different in double-blind taste tests, as the composition of the muscle tissue is different. (I didn't say better, I said different.) This makes sense, because they have a different level of physical activity and grow at different rates.

So next time you try to say something, especially if you are chastising someone else for their ignorance, first ask yourself, "Is this just some crap I heard, or does what I'm saying actually have some truth to it."

You should read up on what they do to other foods. the ONLY place you can get real food is the farmers market from a small grower (not the mexican in his truck with mangoes and kiwi fruit, that's all supermarket seconds) that is foods that are grown locally. Anything else has been processed... yes even the lettuce in winter.

What I find most interesting, is that Lead, used to shield you from harmful X-rays, is also on that list. This means that you couldn't make some sort of lead shielding to protect you from your mobile phone.

Did you know that America and practically every first world country ships and sells a more dangerous radioactive substance as food? They have much more radiation than coffee, and this substance is even fed to some animals, especially monkeys.

Hint: bananas have more radiation than almost every other food available, yet nobody wants to pull bananas from the market because it's the only good source of potassium.Double hint: you get the same amount of radiation from a banana by just lying near someone.Triple h

Hint: bananas have more radiation than almost every other food available, yet nobody wants to pull bananas from the market because it's the only good source of potassium.Double hint: you get the same amount of radiation from a banana by just lying near someone.Triple hint: take everything you read with a grain of iodized salt.

So they've put it next to coffee, coinage and food coloring. Why doesn't everyone flip out when things like those are added to Group 2B?

You know what else is in Group 2B?! Gasoline! Gasoline causes cancer! OMG we have to get off gasoline NOW!

Seriously though, the quote I took from that same Wikipedia article was "[...] less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals." In other words, if you take "science says it can't prove god exists" as "science says god might exist", then yes the headline is correct.

"Why doesn't everyone flip out when things like those are added to Group 2B"

Because there is a large group of people who are afraid of science and technology. And they base their knowledge of science on what they learned in 8th grade science class. When they talk about the evils of DDT, and how we didn't know how harmful radiation was when we drop the Atomic bomb to end World War II. So they will go out and protest any technology and use any bit of evidence that it could be harmful to raise their arms us a

Group 2B [wikipedia.org] simply means "possibly carcinogenic to humans."
I would like to point out that also in Group 2B are Magnetic fields (extremely low frequency), pickled vegetables, coffee, nickel and the occupation of carpentry and joinery. And you know what else? Citrus Red No. 2 which is used to color the oranges you buy in supermarkets.
So they've put it next to coffee, coinage and food coloring. Why doesn't everyone flip out when things like those are added to Group 2B?

Your post had me feeling good until I clicked on the Group 2B link and saw nasty materials like lead, DDT, heavy hydrocarbons, and hydrazine.

Take your logic and go home. Can't you see I'm in a frenzied panic here?

Why doesn't everyone flip out when things like those are added to Group 2B?

Because the WHO didn't make a big deal about adding those to the list. This is another mostly useless organization throwing FUD around trying to look relevant instead of focusing on the small part of what they do that is actually relevant. Pretty much status quo.

It's based off yet another metastudy. No new data, the studies, other than the BMJ study that pretty much everyone has problems with, all still show no causal link. I can't quite figure out the WHO's justification on this one.

Being carcinogenic and toxic are not mutually exclusive. The difference is the type of exposure and the amount of exposure. For example many chemicals like DDT are carcinogenic if exposed to the skin in small amounts over time. If you drank enough of it, you would die quickly.

The difference here is that the frequency put out by a cell phone isn't capable of causing any direct change at a microscopic scale, period. For it to affect anything, you need an antenna of sufficient size and conductivity. And it was a fairly reasonable (though possibly erroneous) assumption that we do not have those naturally occurring in our brains.

Real story: the WHO lacked the guts to put this cellphone nonsense to bed once and for all. Studies that ask people with brain cancers "How much did you use your phone?" are pretty much all they had, and they seem to be the definition of "Confirmation Bias."

In other news, the media fails science forever, but we knew that already.

Real story: the WHO lacked the guts to put this cellphone nonsense to bed once and for all. Studies that ask people with brain cancers "How much did you use your phone?" are pretty much all they had, and they seem to be the definition of "Confirmation Bias."

In other news, the media fails science forever, but we knew that already.

I think they did put in a bit more effort than that. low level EMF radiation is not a trivial issue. And if you read the reports instead of concentrating on being shrill they did identify particular groups at risk, such as infants whose parents use cellphone music to keep their toddlers quiet and basically park an active phone next to young developing skulls and brains for hours on end. It also depended a lot on shape, Many flip phones because of their geometry kept the radiating part sufficiently away to be much less a concern, but almsot all smartphones today are unibody designs which means the EMF emitting body and screen is in direct contact with your head.

The problem is that the evidence goes both ways, some studies show a correlation, others don't. Keep in mind that what's been said by the WHO isn't that the studies that showed a correlation are correct, just that they might be. The end result for the WHO is to say "well, there *might* be a link so we should at least continue to watch the issue" which is basically all that classifying cell phones as class 2B carcinogens says. As noted by other commentors, this class of potential carcinogen includes things like caffeine, nickel and Red No. 2 food coloring. Basically the slightly misleading name of the category (calling it a carcinogen) has the media all in a tizzy since of course journalists never actually read the quotes they're relaying or look into what that pesky 2B in front means. FTFA:

"This IARC classification does not mean cell phones cause cancer. Under IARC rules, limited evidence from statistical studies can be found even though bias and other data flaws may be the basis for the results."

If you're going to talk of economic incentives, the telecoms industry has every incentive to make sure we never do definitive research on this question. That is the reason we don't know how dangerous EMR really is. Maybe it's not at all dangerous. We know it depends greatly on frequency and intensity. Gamma rays are very dangerous. X-rays are not as bad, and we actually make use of brief and light exposures to them. Ultraviolet can cause skin cancer. And the part of the spectrum used by cellphones?

Are you aware that incandescent lightbulbs give off intense radiation between 400 and 700nm, and that often these devices are used in the vicinity of growing infants? And that this radiation is far more energetic than radio emissions? Oh the humanity.

Still noone has offered up any clue as to how this effect could possibly work when the only biological effects of radio emissions seem to be thermal in nature. Not that if we had some brand new study showing a strong correlation that wouldnt be worth looking

And that's the problem here. What's needed isn't yet another metastudy that provides no new data, and ultimately no new insights. What's needed is research. Come back with possible mechanisms, with some solid evidence that there is a link, and then we can all talk about it.

Being exposed to radiation between 1 meter and 1 millimeter, less energetic than the harmless visible, is known to be hazardous. We call them micro waves.

Sorry, but this is a really dumb remark. Did you ever hear of an "Easy Bake" oven? In fact, visible light can harm you in exactly the same way as microwaves. It is purely a matter of energy and heat dissipation. If I put you in a box with a few thousand watts of visible light, you will be just as cooked as if you were in a microwave oven at the same wattage. There is only one known mechanism whereby electromagnetic radiation of frequency too low to break molecular bonds can cause biological damage, and that is to pump in energy faster than the body can dissipate it as heat. If you do that, you will warm up and eventually cook. Of course, this is entirely irrelevant to the alleged danger of low intensity microwave energy, where the energy flux is far, far below the body's heat dissipation capacity.

Ultraviolet radiation, of course, does have enough photon energy to break molecular bonds, but the energy of microwave photons is orders of magnitude lower. In fact, the energy of a microwave photon is on the same order as the energy of the random Brownian molecular impacts that every molecule of every cell experiences constantly. As a result, it would be a remarkable biological achievement if an organism were to evolve the ability to even detect low intensity microwaves. It would have to have some way of preserving that tiny amount of energy--too small to break any bonds, at most able to jiggle or twist them a bit--and isolate it from the huge background of similar energy Brownian noise, and do so long enough for some protein or other biological molecule to react and trigger the use of biological energy to make some sort of persistent change in the cell.

Meanwhile, of course, despite a huge increase in the use of cell phones, there has been no increase in the overall incidence or death rate of brain cancer.

Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence. In this case we have a remarkable claim, no plausible mechanism, and evidence that can most charitably be termed ambiguous.

I think they did put in a bit more effort than that. low level EMF radiation is not a trivial issue. And if you read the reports instead of concentrating on being shrill they did identify particular groups at risk, such as infants whose parents use cellphone music to keep their toddlers quiet and basically park an active phone next to young developing skulls and brains for hours on end. It also depended a lot on shape, Many flip phones because of their geometry kept the radiating part sufficiently away to be much less a concern, but almsot all smartphones today are unibody designs which means the EMF emitting body and screen is in direct contact with your head.

All of this is irrelevant, because radio waves are nonionizing radiation.

Studies that ask people with brain cancers "How much did you use your phone?" are pretty much all they had, and they seem to be the definition of "Confirmation Bias."

Exactly, and if they had asked 10,000 people with colon cancer how much they used THEIR cell phones, the answer would have probably been "all the time". ANYTHING in the environment could be causing brain tumors: TV use, microwave use, silk pillowcases, dandruff shampoo...
As I walk and drive around town, I see everyone using cell phones. I use one, all my family and friends use them. So why aren't people dropping dead left and right from brain tumors?

Thank you for bringing that point up in the discussion. Perhaps one reason we're seeing less than the usual scientifically enlightened response in this case (comedians may respond here) is that the "tech-savvy" nerds are higher on the adoption curve for unibody phone designs (including smart phones) and also may consider brain cancer to be one of the types most detrimental to one's perceived chief asset. If so, then it's reasonable to expect that a higher level of fear than usual will be loosed among the

"The heavy users had double the rate of brain glioma compared to the non-users."

I'm curious about this.

I went to read the ones linked to from the articles in the OP and I think the summary is in fact wrong about it simply being a new interpretation of the study from last may since that was fairly far on the side of there being not much there.

I'm not sure that is the question studies have asked. There is difference between asking "have you ever owned a cellphone" and "how much did you use it?". If you can confirm that heavy users get more gliablastomas, you have an interesting correlation - a dose-response relationship. Its perfectly valid to look at people's past in retrospect to see if there has been an exposure that might relate to the condition.

"Lacked the guts" is a charitable way of putting it. The WHO has lied about the statistical significance of e.g. second hand smoking risk in the past. They are likely to be similarly disingenuous in the future.

This announcement will certainly bring out the paranoid reply of the masses... It doesn't really change what any of us "know" about possible cancer causing effects (or lack thereof). But let's be clear... This means that there is a "possibility" that it could contribute to cancer. The WHO has a whole range of classifications within this category that it still really means nothing.

As an example, other things on this list:coffeealcoholic drinksworking the night shift

If the radiation from phones (or wireless for that matter) are carcinogenic somehow, should we not see a dramatic increase in cancer incidences in people who suffer from broken DNA-repair mechanisms? Is this being observed?

If the radiation from phones (or wireless for that matter) are carcinogenic somehow, should we not see a dramatic increase in cancer incidences in people who suffer from broken DNA-repair mechanisms? Is this being observed?

Not to validate the fear-mongering going on here, but your question points out the problem we face exactly.

Perhaps it takes 25 years for cellphone radiation to make any observable changes in somebody's physiology. That would mean that most of the older generation wouldn't even notice a difference in their lives. But it also means that we currently have two entire generations that will all develop brain cancer around age 30. I imagine that would be a touch devastating to the first world countries.

As far as I understand the mechanisms though, the reason cancer develops over time is that a certain number of mutations have to occur (5-7) for the cells to show hyperplasia, mutator phenotype etc. and eventually metastasize. But in people who lack one or more DNA repair mechanisms, cancer will arise sooner, since the risk (and thus rate) of the mutation is greater (they are not supposed to ever get an X-ray, e.g., or develop breast cancer at a young age. People with xerodema pigmentosum is a example, and they get all sorts of skin cancers eve as children - but you might not want to google that).
So I'm asking if there should not be vanguard of sorts, a group of people in which we could detect this. If they have an already identified condition, it might be possible to see that they are getting allot of cancers since cellphones became commonplace.

I suppose I should have prefaced my argument by saying that it might not even be cancer we need to worry about. We know that cell phone radiation does affect the brain (see: http://slashdot.org/story/06/06/26/1151231/Cell-Phone-Radiation-Excites-the-Brain [slashdot.org]) but we don't know the hows or the whys. Hell, this effect might even be 100% beneficial to humans and have no side effects. It just seems to me that we might be dressing our kids in asbestos clothing; we only kno

But it also means that we currently have two entire generations that will all develop brain cancer around age 30. I imagine that would be a touch devastating to the first world countries.

Not really. It sounds like a selection process to me. It's easy to fall into the habit of thinking 'fuck off and die' when you see people driving or walking with a cellphone wedged permanently to their face.

There will be a certain amount of satisfaction in seeing cancer wards filled with that sort of people. I wonder if

But that's not how cancers work. Every time you're exposed to a carcinogen, there's a probability that it will cause damage to your DNA relative to its carcinogenic properties. There's a range of damage it can potentially do. There's a chance that the damage will be repaired. There's a chance that the damage won't really amount to anything, but it might also prove to be malignant. Roll all these probabilities together, but wind-up being pretty unlucky, you get life-threatening, malignant cancer. Carcinogens aren't really cumulative-damage sorts of things; you could chain-smoke for 50 years and not get lung cancer (in which case you'd probably be beating the odds in a death-defying manner), or you could possibly be unlucky enough to have some toxic particulate act on your lung tissue and start a cancer from one whiff of secondhand smoke when you're 5 years old. Every single exposure is a roll of the dice, with one of the static multipliers being the exposure's potential for causing damage to DNA. If that probability is "0", it doesn't matter how many times you roll the dice, you cannot get cancer from that exposure, period.

That leaves the only question, "What is the potential mechanism for radio waves to damage DNA?" There could be some element we don't understand, but from what we do understand, there is essentially zero chance that the radio transmitters in mobile phones can damage DNA in the skin of your ears, much less your brain cells. If it *could* be demonstrably proven to cause damage to any DNA, then there might be cause for concern. But there is no evidence at all to support such suppositions.

I don't think it's that complicated really. 15 years of mobile phone use and I've rarely put a mobile phone near my head not because of fear but because of caution. At first I just wanted a headset so I could keep two hands on the wheel of my car, so in a sense it was a safety issue to begin with.

With a little research in to understanding how these devices worked from an electronics perspective I discovered that a mobile phone frequency transmits between 900Mhz and 2400Mhz. A rough calculation revealed th

Polycarbonate, the plastic used in most cellphones, out-gas various chemicals some of which are known carcinogens. These include benzene, toluene, and chlorobenzene. Since you usually hold the phone up to your face I would bet that you breath enough of this in to cause the amount of cancer found in any study. Real research is done with a negative control for a reason. Since, there is so much radio waves all around us, there is no where that you can exist without the presence of them. Not only that, there is no way for any EM of the wavelength (> than 1 M) or frequency to cause damage to any tissue. The microwave frequency can but it's wavelength is 10 cm and only interacts with molecules on the vibrational frequency that gets absorbed and converted into heat.

According to the report there was a 40% increased chance of glioma among the heaviest cell phone users. According to wikipedia, glioma affects approximately 2-3 in 100,000 people. That's a 0.0025% chance. A 40% increase means cell phone users now have a 0.0035% chance, or 3-4 out of 100,000. You're still 3 times as likely to get hit by lightning and 250 times as likely to die in a fiery car crash.

What the WHO says "There is no evidence that mobile phones cause cancer, but there is also no conclusive evidence that they do not." What CNN reports "There is mounting evidence that cellphones may cause cancer, says the WHO. Cellphones emit non-ionizing radiation, previously thought to not cause cellular damage. Cellphone radiation is similar to microwaves, so it will heat your brain to the boiling point. Some say there is no way that cooking your brain cannot cause some form of harm." Holy hell. I b

All the studies are inconclusive one way or another, but the bulk of studies seem to be against the idea that they are carcinogenic. Limited (I believe ONE) studies did show an increase in a lethal form of brain cancer, but no other studies supported this.

So they are probably not carcinogenic, but the bureaucrats are too testicularly-impaired to actually come out and say that, so they leave it at a "may be harmful" rating the same as a bunch of other meaninglessly-"dangerous" things like copper or being a carpenter.

If cell phones were anywhere near as bad as tobacco - or even anywhere near as bad as the doomsayers insist - then the extensive, large-scale, costly, long-term studies already conducted would have picked up a clear effect already.

Detecting the negative health effects of tobacco was some pretty low-hanging epidemiological fruit. Smokers die between ten and fifteen years younger than their non-smoking peers. Between one half and two thirds will die from a smoking-related illness. Their risk of lung cancer is elevated more than tenfold; about one in six smokers will be killed by it.

For cellular phones, the absolute worst-case scenario is a statistically-significant increase in the risk of certain rare cancers, affecting a minuscule portion of the population. The WHO's caution is based principally on a single study that found a 40% increase in glioma incidence among heavy cell phone users; the WHO report noted that while there is reason for suspicion, chance or coincidence couldn't be ruled out as a cause of the apparent effect.

The incidence of central nervous system tumors is something like 7 per 100,000 population per year; gliomas are about half of that total [wiley.com]. If we assume that the full 40% increase in risk is real and accurate, then we're looking at something like 1 or 2 cases per 100,000 population per year. This isn't the next tobacco. This isn't tobacco's kid brother. This isn't even tobacco's fifth cousin's hamster. Heavy cell phone use is something like a thousand-fold less risky than lighting up.

You're more likely to be killed [purewatergazette.net] by a car (either as a pedestrian or as an occupant), or drowning, or accidental poisoning. You're appreciably more likely to be shot and killed (though slightly less likely to be stabbed to death). Statistically speaking, the average American is quite a bit more likely to deliberately kill himself rather than wait for his cell phone to do it for him.

The most likely way for cell phone use to kill or maim anyone isn't through radiation, but through distracted driving.

The reason is that the frequencies cell phones use are below the spectrum of ultraviolet light. It is near the spectrum of ultraviolet light where the first ionizing radiation occurs, which is required to be able to cause cancer. Ionizing means that the energy level of the individual photons of the transmission have enough energy to disturb the molecular structure of live cells. Microwave "radiation" (which has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear radiation) is far within the level of the non-ionizing radiation spectrum, so there is no possibility of it having the energy required to cause cancer.

Cell phones use frequencies around 800 MHz to around 2 GHz or so. 3 GHz has an energy level of about 12.4 ueV; ultraviolet light where the first ionizing radiation is possible is around 124ev -- that's a 10 million to one difference in energy level. Have a look at the energy level chart on the right hand side of:

People are also afraid of the cell base stations, because they don't know how safe they actually are. The transmitters for these typically send 20 - 40 watts -- that's all. This is then sent through directional "sectored" antennas that typically have 120 degrees of horizontal beam width and only 6 to 15 degrees of vertical beam width; so the three-dimensional antenna pattern is like a 120 degree slice of a pancake, yielding gain of about 13 dBi. This focusing is where the "gain" of antennas comes from -- by focusing where the energy is transmitted.

This standard is incredibly long to read, but boils down to this: the only proven effect of microwave radiation in 60 years of research is the effect of microwave heating. No cancer. Further than that, the standard narrows down to the power levels that are safe for various frequency regions concerning microwave heating.

So at 900 MHz and with a typical transmit power of 20 Watts and a sectored antenna with 13 dBi gain, you need to be 2 feet in front of the antenna while it's transmitting for it to be considered unsafe. This means the only way it's unsafe for a human being is if they're not only on the tower, but right in front of the antenna while it's operating at full power.

The cell phones themselves have a limit on how much power they are allowed to transmit. There are different power limits in various countries; in the U.S. the limit is 1.6 W/kg SAR, in Canada I believe t

Yeah, funny how all those useless studies over the last hundred years have nothing to do with the fact that I am able to read your drivel from the other side of the planet within seconds of you hitting the "submit" button - something that was unthinkable at the start of last century.

While the popular press likes to present science as a limited series of earth-shattering breakthroughs, in reality science is built upon thousands and thousands of tiny incremental steps, not all of them in the same direction.

CRT televisions and computer monitors do emit a small amount of X-rays, and X-rays can cause cancer in large doses. The dose you would get from using a CRT monitor for a year is considered to be negligible [xkcd.com], though.

The ultraviolet portion of sunlight will cause skin cancer if you are in the sun too much.

The effect of electromagnetic radiation on human cells can be different for different wavelengths. One problem is that different cell phone standards use different wavelengths, and research on the health effe